I tried to apply this patch, but it didn't work in IntelliJ and I have no idea why. I suspect I might need to use a command line client to do this one, but I'm on Windows at the moment, and the command line is --- well... you know ;) (and I don't have Tortoise installed - I might just have to wait to do this on my Mac later tonight).
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Kalle Korhonen<[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for a quick turnaround. I had already opened an issue against > adding items to svn:ignore, just prepared a new patch against the > latest trunk (with SHIRO-87 included!) and attached to the same issue > that was still open. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-43 if > you are in the mood for applying more patches - should be trivial and > safe to do. > > Kalle > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Les Hazlewood<[email protected]> wrote: >> Sounds good - I applied it :) >> >> I typically use the 'fix version' to be the next unreleased version. >> The 'Incubator' version is more like a backlog of everything that >> needs to be complete before we can graduate. >> >> Thanks for the help! >> >> Les >> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Kalle >> Korhonen<[email protected]> wrote: >>> Coming in one by one - this is trivial: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-87. Let me know if I >>> should be using different affect/fix versions. Normally I attach a >>> patch file, but since it was so trivial, would be just as easy to fix >>> by hand. >>> >>> Kalle >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Les Hazlewood<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Great, thanks very much for this Kalle. >>>> >>>> +1 to removing the JavaDoc as part of the install process to shorten >>>> build times. I wouldn't want to move it to a profile until we can >>>> also guarantee it executes during the deploy goal so the build server >>>> produces them during the normal deployment. I'm sure this is an easy >>>> fix that I'm overlooking... >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kalle >>>> Korhonen<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Les Hazlewood<[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I'd be happy to add any patches you might be able to contribute. I >>>>>> agree that there is still some cleanup left like what you recommend. >>>>>> I think it might make more sense to include these as patches to >>>>>> different Jira issues just in case one or more of them need to be >>>>>> discussed first. >>>>> >>>>> Ok, I'll open 2-3 issues with small patches. >>>>> >>>>>> As for the javadoc, I just added that back really quickly before our >>>>>> first maven deployment to ensure that it would be uploaded. For some >>>>>> reason the previous configuration didn't seem to be generating it at >>>>>> all. Where should it go? I personally don't really care how it is >>>>>> defined as long as it is generated and uploaded each time a deployment >>>>>> is done. Any patches/recommendations for that? >>>>> >>>>> By default javadoc:jar binds to package phase, which is the >>>>> recommended usage. However, it takes some time and the most common >>>>> Maven command is mvn install so it makes sense to try to optimize the >>>>> execution time of it. For one project at work the javadoc is created >>>>> as part of "javadoc" profile, i.e. you execute it with mvn -P javadoc >>>>> install. However, the most common way to do it is to generate javadoc >>>>> as part of site deployment (I think site plugin executes it even by >>>>> default). We could do it with a profile for now while we think about >>>>> the site deployment some more (as part of the other email thread). >>>>> I'll create an issue and add a patch. >>>>> >>>>> Kalle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Kalle >>>>>> Korhonen<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> There are a few small errors in the trunk and some and some >>>>>>> folders/files that would need to be ignore from svn. I could easily >>>>>>> write up a patch to clean it up (I like my source tree all clean and >>>>>>> nice so nothing would mask the real errors), but would the committers >>>>>>> accept it, and if so, should I open an issue for each of them >>>>>>> separately or one for all? It'd cut down on bureaucracy if somebody >>>>>>> with commit rights would do them directly. Here's a few for reference: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - package-info.java in shiro-core/src/main/java/org/apache/shiro needs >>>>>>> to declare org.apache.shiro (not org.shiro). >>>>>>> - all target folders need to be added to svn:ignore >>>>>>> - IDE specific files should be added to svn:ignore >>>>>>> - why is javadoc generated as part of regular install goal? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
